Page 267 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] LIEUTENANT COLONEL GANESAN S. (RETD.) v. COMMR. OF CUS., CHENNAI 705

2020 (373) E.L.T. 705 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. IV]
S/Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) and P. Dinesha, Member (J)
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GANESAN S. (RETD.)
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS., CHENNAI
Final Order No. 40083/2020, dated 6-2-2020 in Appeal No. C/42206/2017-DB
Penalty on co-accused - Smuggling of Gold - Evidence - Chain of
events indicate that appellant, owner of Security Agency at Air Cargo Com-
plex, was in constant touch on phone with main accused as well his own secu-
rity staff found engaged in removal of smuggled gold from Cargo - Thus his
plea that he did not know main accused has no force looking into duration of
phone calls with main accused - Further, Statements of his employees squarely
bring out his involvement - Plea that these statements were involuntary and
retracted, is not fully established from records - Impugned order imposing
penalty on co-accused sustainable - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras
11.2, 12]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Anil Gadodia v. Commissioner — 2016 (343) E.L.T. 983 (Tribunal) — Referred ........................... [Para 3.2]
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Mahendera Kumar Singhal
— 2016 (333) E.L.T. 250 (Del.) — Referred ................................................................................ [Para 3.2]
D.V. Kishore v. Commissioner — 2017 (350) E.L.T. 527 (Mad.) —Referred .................................... [Para 3.2]
Shafeek P.K. v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 199 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................. [Para 3.2]
S.N. Agrotech v. Commissioner — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 761 (Tribunal) — Referred .......................... [Para 3.2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, for the Appel-
lant.
Ms. K. Komathi, Authorized Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : P. Dinesha, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed by the as-
sessee against the Order-in-Appeal Airport C.Cus.I. No. 168/2017, dated 11-9-
2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai, and the only
grievance of the appellant is against the levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of
the Customs Act, 1962.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan,
Learned Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Ms. K. Komathi,
Learned Joint Commissioner (Authorized Representative), appeared for the Rev-
enue-respondent.
3.1 The submissions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant are
summarized as below :
• The only allegation against the appellant is that he, along with other
co-noticees namely, M/s. Solai Exports & Importers (Represented
by its proprietor Mr. V.S. Mathiarasu), Mr. Khaja Mohideen, Mr.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  267